C. G. Bishop v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
495 F.2d 289 · 1974
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Carlsberg Resources Corp. v. Cambria Savings & Loan Ass'n (1977), Gross v. Hougland (1983)
25 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. · Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc. · Williamson v. Gilmer · McSparran v. Weist · Lester v. McFaddon
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, the administrator has failed to establish any substantive facts or to assign any valid reasons for his appointment that would give ‘substance’ to his representation or fix his status in the suit as different from nominal. Without any ‘real [or] substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation’, he possesses ‘no stake in the litigation’. He has nothing to gain by the suit save a fee for the use of his name if successful, and, if the suit is lost, nothing to lose. In fact, it would seem that the beneficiaries of the action, if they chose to, could settle the action, with or without consulting him. Nor is the prosecution of the action incidental to any general fiduciary duties of an administrator. There are no assets in the estate other than this suit. The appellant has no knowledge of the accident out of which the litigation arose and can contribute nothing to its prosecution. He actually had no part in the selection or employment of counsel.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It may be assumed that if there is a valid reason for the appointment of an out-of-state administrator that gives to his representation greater substantiality than a mere administrator ad litem, the citizenship of the administrator may be determinative of diversity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“something more than a nominal interest at stake in the litigation,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.